“People on this forum and in the media (Amanda Carpenter-I-hate-Trump, for example) have complained that Trump should have spent more money to win more delegates. I can’t believe Conservatives are arguing that a politician should spend more money on the election process. I can’t believe Conservatives are arguing that a politician should have bribed more people.”
Spending more money (and effort) on the election process doesn’t equate to bribery. I received a few emails and a phone call from Cruz’s people (paid? volunteers? I don’t know) to go attend my precinct and district caucuses. At the district caucus it was mostly Cruz supporters there. They probably got similar calls and emails (Washington State).
I read where Trump sent out mailers, but had them addressed to Washington D.C. So yes, a “ground game” of probably mostly volunteers seems to work.
I feel snubbed though. All I got was emails and a call. Maybe my cash bribe will be waiting for me at the state convention. (Hey - come to think of it - I’m in the hole a couple hundred bucks for the various fees! Not counting travel and hotel to go to state.)
BTW - Washington state delegate are bound to the winner of our primary. So I guess the bribing will only happen if Trump doesn’t make the 50%+1 threshold.
If you are a sure-thing vote for Cruz, then there is no reason to bribe you. Cough, choke, I mean, “woo” you.
But if you’re not, then you open the door for wooing.
And yes, it’s only necessary to woo anyone if the vote is close. So if we get to June 7 and Trump doesn’t have 1237, and if Cruz doesn’t already have 1237 shadow, second-ballot votes, then don’t be afraid to email Cruz and say, “I’m a solid Cruz supporter, but I’m $500 short on being able to make it to the convention.” ;-)